GREAT ARTICLE-FORT BLUE MOUNDS- BLACK HAWK WAR

[Cliff Krainik]

images.andale.com/f2/116/104/7566189/1056504077047_FORTblueMOUNDS.jpg [/img]



The Summer 2003 issue of WISCONSIN MAGAZINE OF HISTORY contains Robert A. Birmingham's superb article,
Uncovering the Story of Fort Blue Mounds. Bob details the history of the settlement of Blue Mounds and the lead mining efforts of Ebenezer Brigham. The events precipitating the Black Hawk War and the dramatic struggle for defense are skillfully told in a fast paced narrative. Of equal importance is the author's analysis of the archeological findings at the Fort Blue Mounds site. As Wisconsin State Archeologist, Mr. Birmingham is expertly suited to the task.


images.andale.com/f2/116/104/7566189/1058896139539_FORT.jpg [/img]

The twelve page article is beautifully illustrated with fifteen, mostly color, photographs including a painting of the Wisconsin Heights battlefield and a copy portrait of Black Hawk by Robert Sully. Also shown are recovered artifacts, the Apple River Fort, 19th century illustrations, a map of the Black Hawk War, archaeological activities, and a wonderful "preliminary sketch" of Fort Blue Mounds by Mike Thorson. This article is a "must read" for anyone interested in Wisconsin's role during the Black Hawk War.

This issue is available for $10.00 plus postage - call 888 748-7479

As a personal note I like to add that Michele and I were extremely fortunate to have accompanied Bob Birmingham and David Gjestson on a Black Hawk War Tour sponsored by the Friends of the Wisconsin Historical Society in July of 2001 David's lecture at the Wisconsin Heights battlefield and Bob's discourse on the Blue Mounds Fort were scholarly, engaging and meaningful.


Cliff Krainik

[Robert Braun]

I managed to scrounge a copy and have read this article. In most respects, I am in full agreement with Cliff... the article by Mr. Birmingham is nicely done.

Without hopefully giving away too much from those who have yet to read it, I do differ with Mr. Birmingham in some of his interpretations:

1. In my opinion, Black Hawk's parley at Old Man Creek was not an attempt to 'broker a peace" as indicated by Mr. Birmingham. As discussed many times on this board, the presence of the white flag merely indicated a "truce" or cessation of hostilities for purposes of discussion. Up to the point that the shooting started, BH's own account indicates a desire for parley, nothing more.

2. Mr. Birmingham indicated that the moulded lead flint pad found at the Mounds Fort site were a.) similar to pads found at the Fort Crawford archaeology, and b.) indicate U. S. Army use, since the settlers (and by extrapolation the militia) used flint grips of leather. While I agree that the similarity between the artifacts, suggests a U. S. Army connection, this may or may not be the case. If the source of the Mounds Fort company's weapons was a federal depot or fort, then it stands to reason that some weapons may have already been fitted with such moulded flint grips with which to secure the flint. Further, the use of a variety of plain or cut sheets of lead for the purposes of making flint grips (at least as available and much more durable than the leather) is well established from the colonial period, in digs done by Calver and Bolton in New York City and other sites. I have suggested than small artifact pieces of lead sheet unearthed at Apple River Fort may well have been earmarked for this purpose.

3. The tradition of French so-called "blond" flints in the Army is well-established from the Revolution through the War of 1812. After fighting the Brits through two major wars, French flints were simply more desirable for purposes of procurement and issue to the Regular Army. The presence of these flints at Fort Crawford, Apple River Fort, Fort Atkinson (Nebraska) and Mound Fort seems to bear this out. However, I disagree with the assertion that the Army issued blond flints, while the settlers opted for the black so-called Brandon flints of the British. Artifacts from ARF indicate BOTH kinds, with the artifact blond flint knapped to a size too small to be from/for the U. S. Musket. Insead, I suspect that settlers obtained such flints for their firearms as they could... either French or British flints, with maybe a preference for the former.

Finally, I would have enjoyed more discussion on the white metal military button dicovered by Mr. Birmingham and his team.

IMHO, it is a remarkable discovery, and unlike any other I have seen in my experience. As a flat button, it clearly pre-dates the conversion of American buttons to semi-domed buttons in the early 1820's, and incorporates both a later pattern of eagle motif, and the circle of stars seen in earlier War of 1812 general service buttons. It is also different from buttons unearthed at another so-called "transitional" Army post-- Fort Atkinson, Nebraska... where many buttons of the War of 1812 style were found.

I don't think this button can be described in any other way except as a military button worn during the period of the Black Hawk War, and likely lost at the time when Atkinson's Regular and Militia brigades joined Henry and Dodge's troops before bridging the Wisconsin River at Helena.

Bob.

[pshrake]

I would agree with both Bob and Cliff in thier assesments of Birminghams article. I would also agree with Bob in that the button was the one of the most interesting discoveries. The question of the button interests me. Historical Reproductions is duplicating this exact button, and is labeling it as a "U.S. general service great coat button" dating to 1815. The term great coat button is what confuses me? As that the Black Hawk War was in the summer, surely Atkinson's troops did not carry greatcoats. Could one then surmise that this button was a general issue button worn on any number of different uniform coats such as dress or fateague blouses?

The repro button can be seen at:

www.historicalreproduction.com/index.html

Birmingham also seemed to indicate that a significant publication was in the works, might we hope that more detailed information and more images of artifacts may come to light. Does anyone know if the official archeological report is on file, or available at the SHSW?

Pete

[Robert Braun]

I am also concerned with the use of Mike Thorson's artwork as "altered" by someone else. My understanding is that art is not like the written word, where one can quote under the "fair use" clause of the copyright law.

I do hope that Mike's permission was gained before using his work as it was presented--altered-- in the publication.

As for Pete's observations on the button, note that the artifact is white metal. Normally, watch coat buttons were in brass-- which was point on this particular item. I don't think that the presence of say a watch coat button necessarily means that watch coats were present at Mounds Fort, which was I think Pete's point.

Bob.

[Mike Thorson]

Robert said:

I am also concerned with the use of Mike Thorson's artwork as "altered" by someone else. My understanding is that art is not like the written word, where one can quote under the "fair use" clause of the copyright law.

I do hope that Mike's permission was gained before using his work as it was presented--altered-- in the publication.

As for Pete's observations on the button, note that the artifact is white metal. Normally, watch coat buttons were in brass-- which was point on this particular item. I don't think that the presence of say a watch coat button necessarily means that watch coats were present at Mounds Fort, which was I think Pete's point.

Bob.

I was compensated by the State of Wisconsin for two line drawings one of which was used for the National Register of Historic Places when they registered Fort Blue Mounds. They gave me the original drawing back. I assume they scanned it or something. I was told that the drawing would also be used in the Wisconsin Magazine of History article but at the last minute was told that "We made some modifications to your first drawing " - I assumed this meant they took out the Blue Mounds Ridge that was part of the original drawing or somehow changed the angle / juxtaposition of it behind the Fort. I was informed of the desire for some modifications but was never told what exactly they wanted.



I don't have the notes I worked from in front of me and obviously Bob Birmingham knows the Fort dimensions in his head by this time but the dimensions are much different from my drawing. The drawing that is in the magazine was a surprise to me. Parts of the front blockhouse, the ditches and much of the stockade near the viewer I think was simply traced with pen and ink. The front blockhouse also apperas to no longer be square as I drew it originally. I'm pretty sure the blockhouses were square..? The interior building shrunk dramatically and squeezed more tightly into the stockade along with other changes. I'm almost positive too that the interior building was described as longer than the blockhouses - the altered drawing shows it as smaller than either blockhouse. Obviously the length of the stockade was shortened considerably. The far blockhouse probably ahd the most alterations. The side facing the viewer is the same but the sides and top were changed because of the much different angle.

I'm very late in coming into this whole thing and the author of course has the most information and time, work, sweat invested in the article so I'm not questioning his knowledge of the Fort in any way, just that the info I worked with was obviously different. My problem is simply the credit given - that the drawing appearing in the article was "based on a drawing" done by me. To me, portions looked simply traced and it doesn't reflect the many hours of work I put into the original drawing, at one point getiing feedback from the author and then changing things.

But one can just see what has been done to Bob Braun's work by others to know that what seems fair and proper to the CREATOR of something from nothing doesn't even occur to those who build upon this creation ond give no, or what I construe to be inedequate credit.

I'm probably shooting myself in the foot here for future work as I'm sure this will get back to people as fast as it takes to cut & paste and click but it doesn't mean I wouldn't want to do work for the state in the future. I think people there, as with most people, don't really have any idea how much work it really is to create a drawing from nothing and that there are many different kinds of drawings, or pieces done in other media. The drawings I did for Blue Mounds and for Wisconsin Heights were done is a certain style that I noticed was used at National Parks and that I was attempting to mimick. That is, simple, stark line drawings with little shadow or line emphasis - deemphasis. Basically they sort of look like drawings you might see in a coloring book. Th.is was done intentionally and as a BASE to start with. More advanced and stylisitc works of the Fort and of Wisconsin Heights could of course use these first drawings as a base to start from but i don't think that this point was ever understood by some. Plus there was always the question of compensation.

[Robert Braun]

Pete... here's a piece of information that may or may not be relevent.

Gen. Atkinson’s Order No. 19 issued April 5,1832 called up six companies from Jefferson Barracks. The directive required company commanders to be provided for each soldier “One Chackos [sic], one Great Coat, one Blanket, two Shirts, one Gray Jacket, two prs. Pantaloons, one pr. Boots, and one pr. Shoes. Each company will be furnished with four axes & four Spades...” (emphasis added.)

Assuming the coats stayed with the Army's baggage, this might be one source for the button found at Mound Fort.

Bob.